Verily, we have sent down the Reminder, and, verily, we will
guard it [Q15:9].

Despite
almighty Allah's vacuous promise to protect the originality of the
Quran, it is substantially corrupted. And it is interesting that all Islamic
Schools also accept this fact
in the way that the Sunnis blame the Shias for corrupting the Koran,
while the Shias blame
the Sunni for the same. In reality, both Shia and
Sunni books have narrations regarding corruption and editing of the Koran.
Previously, I had written an article regarding corruptions in the
Quran. Over recent the weeks, I have expanded my research on the
Quranic corruptions and distortion and have compiled the outcome of
my research into this E-book. I believe my research findings, as
presented here, will end
debates or counter-claims against the fact that the Koran has been corrupted
and distorted to a significant extent from its original version. After this
reading E-book, Muslims will ever be able to say that the current
Quran is the pristine, uncorrupted, words of Allah as revealed to
Prophet Muhammad.

2. Shia
hadiths on distortions in the Quran

First group of hadith about Tahreef

The first group of hadiths are those that contain the word
“Tahreef” in them. Here we see first one from Al Kafi:

“It has been narrated from Ali
Ibn Suweed that Imam Musa Kazim [as] was in prison when I wrote a
letter to him. The Imam [as] replied to it and amidst his reply he
wrote this sentence: “They were declared Ameen over the book of
Allah but they have committed Tahreef and made changes to it”

We see another hadith, belonging to this group, which has been
recorded by Ibn Shehr Ashob in 'Manaqib'. The sermon of Imam
Hussain, delivered on the day of Ashura, has been recorded in the
following manner.

“No doubt you are counted
amongst those people from the ummah of my grandfather who are
disobedient and rebellious, who have left the bounds determined by
Allah, who have thrown away the Book of Allah, and talk with the
satanic intuition. Verily you are amongst the same people whose
faces are black on account of your sins and have committed the
dangerous crime of making Tahreef with the Book of Allah”.

Second Group of hadith about Tahreef

The second group of hadiths are those that suggest that the names
of Imams of Ahlulbait [as] were present in the Quran but were
deleted at a later date.

'Jabir said: Gebrail revealed
this verse to Muhammad in this manner: 'And if you are in doubt as
to that which We have revealed in favor of Ali to Our servant,
then produce a chapter like it.''

In a second tradition of this group of hadiths, Abu Baseer
narrated the revelation of the verse 33:71 from Imam Jafar Sadiq in
the following manner [Al-Kafi, Vol. 1, p. 414]:

Abu Abdullah [as] said: 'Allah
almighty said: 'and whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger in the
guardianship of Ali and the Imams after him, he indeed achieves a
mighty success'. It was revealed in this manner.'

A third tradition of this group, as records Al-Kafi, has been
narrated by Manhal from Imam Jaffar Sadiq [as] the verse 4:47 was
revealed in the following manner:

Abu Abdullah said: 'Gabriel (as)
revealed upon Muhammad (s) this verse: 'O you who have been given
the Book! believe that which We have revealed in Ali's favor a
clear light'.'

It has been narrated on the
authority of Asbagh bin Nabata that Ameer al Momineen [as] said:
One part of the Quran is about us Ahlebayt and our friends, and
another part is about incidents and traditions while one part is
about obligations and instructions.”

“If the Quran were recited in
the manner in which it was revealed then our name(s) would have
appeared in it.

The third group of hadith about Tahreef

This group contain hadiths that demonstrate Tahreef in Quran in
respect of additions or deletions.

First Hadith [Tafseer Al Ayashi, p. 13, Hadith 6]:

“Narrated from Mesar that Imam
Baqar [as] said: Had additions and deletions not been made in then
Quran then our right would not have been hidden from those who
possess minds. When the Qaim [as] rises, the Quran shall endorse
every sentence uttered from his tongue.”

Second Hadith [Usole kafi 1:228]:

Jabir reported that he heard
Imam Baqir saying: 'No one can claim that he has compiled the
Quran as Allah revealed except a liar. The only person to compile
it and memorise it according to its revelation was Ali ibn Abi
Talib and the Imams who succeeded him.

Kulyani narrates the following statement, which he attributes to
Imam Baqir:

"None among mankind but a great
liar claims that he has compiled the whole Qur'an as it was
revealed. No one compiled it nor memorized it as Allah revealed
it, but Ali Bin Abi Talib and the Imams after him."

Imam Baqar [as] said: 'Other
than the actual successors of the Holy Prophet [s] no one can
claim that he possesses the Quran with its internal and external
meanings.'

The fourth Group of Hadith about Tahreef

This group comprises of those traditions that suggest that the
names of some men and women were mentioned in the Quran but were
deleted later on.

First Hadith [Tafseer al Ayashi, Vol 1: p. 12:
Hadith 10]:

Imam Jaffar Sadiq [as] said:
“The Quran contains the incidents of the past and future and it
contained the names of some men which were deleted from it and one
name was mentioned in many Surahs which on one knows except the
actual successors of Holy Prophet [s].

Second Hadith [Al Kafi, Vol 2: p. 613: Hadith 16]:

Baznati narrates that Imam Raza
[as] gave me a Quran and asked me not to see it, but I opened it
and recited the first verse of Surah Baina. I found the names of
70 people from the Quraish along with their father’s names. The
Imam [as] asked me to return the Quran to him.

Abdullah bin Sanan narrated from Imam Jaffar
[as] that said:Surah Ahzab contained the blemishes of men and
women from the Quraish and non Quraish. O son of Sanaan this Surah
alone used to expose the wrong deeds of the women of Quraish and
it was lengthier than Surah Baqra but Tahreef and deletion was
made to it”

The fifth Group of Hadith about Tahreef

This group of hadiths contains those hadiths relating to a
certain form of recitations [Qirat] that have been attributed
to Imams [as].

One such tradition is where a man recited the verse 33 of
Surah An'am before Amir al-Momineen [as] in this manner:

Umran bin Maytham narrated that
Abu Abdullah said: 'A man recited to Ameer al Momineen (as) '{but
surely they do not call you a liar but the unjust deny the
communications of Allah}'. He (Imam Ali) said: 'By Allah they
called him liar, but the verse (Yukathiboonaka) is not to be
pronounced emphatically means that they cannot bring falsehood to
reject your truthfulness'. [Al-Kafi, Vol 8: p. 200–241]

Muhammad bin Suleman narrates
from some Sahaba who from Imam Abul Hassan [as]:
We hear some verses that have never been heard before from the
Quran. Moreover we cannot recite [ do qirat] in such a beautiful
manner as you do, so are we sinners? The Imam replied: No you are
not sinners but you recite the Quran in the manner in which you
have been taught and soon there will come a person to teach you.”
[Usool al-Kafi, Vol 2: p. 453]

3. Sunni
reports about additions in Quran

Ibn Abbas testified to fifty verses being added
to the Quran of Uthman

Al-Daani said: ‘They agreed that
the number of verses of Quran are six thousand but they disagreed
in what has been added further (to the Quran), some of them didn't
add more whilst others said it was two hundred and four. Some said
two hundred and fourteen, others said two hundred and nineteen.
Some said two hundred and twenty five, others said two hundred and
thirty six.’

According to Imam of Nawasib Ibn Kathir, 6000 verses are
authentic the remainder are doubtful

To evidence this we have relied on the following esteemed books
of Ahle Sunnah.

“The total number of verses
Quranic verses are 6000. Disagreement remains about the remainder
verses. There are various views and statements about them. One
statement is that there are 6204 verses”

The Hanafi and Maliki belief that “Bismillah al-Rehman al-Rahim”
is not a part of the Quran

Abu Huraira narrated that the
prophet said: 'If anyone recited (Surah) al-Hamd, he shall recite
'Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim' because it is the head of
Quran,
the head of the book and the Sab'e al-Mathani (seven verses) and 'Bismillah
al-Rahman al-Rahim' is part of its verses' [Kanz al-Ummal,
Vol 7: p. 437: Tradition 19665]

“On the other hand, Malik, Abu
Hanifah and their followers said that Bismillah is not an Ayah in
Al-Fatihah or any other Surah.”

We read in Tafseer Khazin:

“Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik and
Imam Auzai attested that neither is “Bismillah” a part of surah
Fatihah, nor of any other surah of the Quran.”

We read in Tafseer Kabeer:

While Abu Hanifa may Allah's
mercy be upon him said: 'Bismillah is not a verse of it'

According to Imam Shaffiyee “Bismillah Al Rehman Al-Rahim” is a
part and a verse of Holy Quran and since whoever rejects even a
single letter of the Quran is Kaafir then doesn’t this mean that
Imam Abu Hanifa was Kaafir according to Shafiyee teachings? Does it
not mean that all Hanafis are infidels in the eyes of Shafiyees?

We read in Noor al Anwar:

“One who rejects that
“Bismillah” is a part of the Quran should not be deemed a Kaafir
when that rejection is on account of doubt. There is disagreement
on this issue in the view of Imam Malik as he didn’t deem it to be
a part of the Quran.”

Other than the month of Ramadhan, “Bismillah” shouldn’t be
recited in any prayer neither on one's heart nor loudly.

Imam Fakhruddin Razi writes in Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 1
page 151:

“Imam Malik and Auzai may Allah
be pleased with both of them said: 'It (Bismillah) isn’t a part of
the Quran except Surah Naml and that other than in Ramadhan, it
should not be recited, neither in ones heart nor aloud.”

The Ulema of Ahle Sunnah believed that the sole reason that
“Bismillah” was written in the Quran was to make a distance between
the texts and to earn a blessing.

We read in Tafseer Kashaf [Volume 1, page 1]:

“The jurists and the Qura of
Madina, Basrah and Sham believed that "Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem
" was not a part of Surah al-Fatiha nor from the Quran . It was
written in the Quran so as to keep a distance between the suras
(chapters) and to earn blessings by commencing with it, as is the
case when one commences any action. [The stance] deeming it not to
be a part of Quran was the madhab of Imam Abu Hanifa and his
followers and for that it is not recited loudly by them during
prayers.”

We also read in Tafseer Kashaf:

“And the Quran readers of Makka
and Kufa believed that it [bismillah] is a verse from [Surah]
Fatihah and every Surat and this was maintained by Imam Shafiyee
and his followers and due to that, they read it loudly.”

Uthman’s own confession about his ignorance on the issue of
Bismillah being a part of Surah Bara’t

“The Holy Prophet [s] died
without informing us whether this (Surah Bar’at) was a part of
that (Surah Anfaal) or not”

Imam of Ahle Sunnah, Imam Malik, said that “Bismillah” is not
written at the beginning of Surah Bara’t, because when the
first part of Surah Bar'at was lost the “Bismillah” was also
lost along with it whilst Uthman stated that the Prophet [s] didn’t
tell them whether or not Sura Bar'at was a part of Surah Anfaal.
Uthman has indirectly admitted that he adopted Qiyas when he was
unsure. Here we see a major contradiction between two great figures
of Ahle Sunnah.

According to the Sahabi Abdullah Ibn Masud, Surah Fatiha is
not a part of Quran

Tafseer Qurtubi, Vol 1: p.15 &
Vol 19: p.151

Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 1
page 2

Tafseer Kabeer page 176

Tafseer Al Itqan, Volume 1 page
80

Tafseer Fatah al-Qadeer, Volume 1
page 15

We read in Tafseer Fatah al-Qadeer:

Abdullah bin Masud would not
write Fateha as part of the Quran, he said: ‘If I wrote it then I
would have to write it at the beginning of every thing.’

Imam Ibn Hajr Asqalani writes in Fatah al Bari, Volume 8,
page 571:

“There is an ijma amongst
Muslims over Fatihah and Mauzatain being a part of the Quran and
whoever rejects them is a Kaafir”

Further evidence of Ibn Masud rejecting Surah Fatihah as
being a part of the Quran

Narrated Zirr bin Hubaish:
I asked Ubai bin Ka'b, "O Abu AlMundhir! Your brother, Ibn Mas'ud
said so-and-so (i.e., the two Mu'awwidh-at do not belong to the
Quran)." Ubai said, "I asked Allah's Apostle about them, and he
said, 'They have been revealed to me, and I have recited them (as
a part of the Quran)," So Ubai added, "So we say as Allah's
Apostle has said."

We read in Fatah al-Bari:

Al-Masnad, Al-Tabarani and Ibn
Mardaweyh from the way of Al-A'mash from Abi Ishaq from Abd al
Rahman bin Yazid Al-Nakhe’i, who said: "Abdullah Ibn Masud used to
erase Al Ma'uzatayn from his Mushafs and say that they (Ma'uzatain)
aren't from Quran.”

All these books evidence beyond reasonable doubt Ibn Masud’s
rejections of two Quranic Surahs. We shall now cite the view of Imam
Jalaluddin Suyuti from Al Itqan (published by Idaara
Islamiyah, Lahore):

“Abdullah bin Ahmed in a book
‘Ziaraat al Musnad’ and Tabarani and Ibn Marjah following A’mash
through Abi Ishaq, Abdul Rehman Bin Yazid Nukh’ei narrated:
“Abdullah Ibn Masud used to erase Mauzatain from his mushaf and
would attest that both of these verses are not a part of the
Quran”. And Bazar and Tabarani at another place have narrated from
the same narrator that: “Abdullah Ibn Masud would write and erase
Mauztain from his copies of the Quran and would state that the
Holy Prophet [s] had only instructed him to use these Surahs as
Taweez and Abdullah Ibn Masud did not recite these Surahs”. All
the chains of this narration are Sahih”.

Similarly Imam Abi Bakar al-Haythami records in Majma al-Zawaid:

Abdulrahman bin Yazid al-Nakhaei
said: Abdullah (Ibn Masud) used to erase Muwaztain from his Mushaf
and say: ‘It is not a part of Allah's book’. It is narrated by
Abdullah bin Ahmad and Tabarani, the narrators of Abdullah are the
narrators of the Sahih and Tabarani's narrators are authentic (Thuqat)”

The companions believed that words have been added in Surah
Lail and its endorsement by Imam Bukhari

We read in Sahih Bukhari 6:60:468:

Narrated Ibrahim:
The companions of 'Abdullah (bin Mas'ud) came to Abu Darda', (and
before they arrived at his home), he looked for them and found
them. Then he asked them: 'Who among you can recite (Qur'an) as
'Abdullah recites it?" They replied, "All of us." He asked, "Who
among you knows it by heart?" They pointed at 'Alqama. Then he
asked Alqama. "How did you hear 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud reciting
Surat Al-Lail (The Night)?" Alqama recited:
'By the male and the female.' Abu Ad-Darda said, "I testify that I
heard the Prophet reciting it likewise, but these people want me
to recite it:--
'And by Him Who created male and female.' but by Allah, I will not
follow them."

وَمَا خَلَقَ الذَّكَرَ وَالْأُنثَى
And Him Who hath created male and female [Pickthal 92:3].

Compare this recital to that offered by Ibn Masud’s followers,
Alqama and the testimony of Abu Ad-Darda, whose recital included
these words 'By the male and the female’ (والذكر والأنثى).

The tradition recorded by Imam Bukhari in his ‘Sahih’ indirectly
persuades his adherents to erase the extra words 'Him Who created'
from this verse since the companions heard the Prophet recite it
with the words ‘By the male and the female’. This tradition clearly
highlights belief in the distortion of the Quran.

The Mushaf of Sahabi Ubai bin Ka'b did not have a word that
the present Quran contains

And when you journey in the
earth, there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer, if you
fear that those who disbelieve will cause you distress, surely the
unbelievers are your open enemy. [Shakir 4:101]

Ibn Jarir and ibn al-Munder
recorded that Ubai used to recite the verse '{if you shorten the
prayer, if you fear that those who disbelieve will cause you
distress} without reciting '{if you fear}'while in Uthman's Mushaf
its '{if you fear that those who disbelieve will cause you
distress}'
[Tafseer Dur e Manthur, Surah Nisa, Verse 101]

This Sunni tradition clearly demonstrates that additions have
been made to the Quran by Uthman while accordong to the belief of
Sahabi Ubai bin Kaab the words 'if you fear' (IN KHIFTUM) are not
the part of this verse.

Umar narrated that the Prophet
[s] said: “The Qur'an has 1,027,000 letters and whoever reads them
with the intention of earning reward [Thawab] shall attain a
female Hoor from paradise against each letter. All the narrators
of this tradition are Thiqah”.

According to Ibn Abbas, the present Quran contains 326631
letters, that means according to the tradition narrated by Umar,
700369 letters are missing from the present Quran which ultimately
means that the number of letters in the present Quran have to be
thrice its present total in order to comply with the statement that Umar attributed to Prophet [s], but in that case the number of Juz/Parahs
would jet up to ninety.

We should also point out that the narrators of Tabrani are
reliable according to Ahle Sunnah. Dahabi in his Mizan without
advancing any proof and logic has maligned Tabrani’s teacher
Muhammad bin Ubaid for citing such narrations that evidences blatant
unprofessional conduct on his part.

Sunni scholars believed that letters have been lost from
the actual Quran

Let us commence by citing the proud statement of Al Hafid
Jalaluddin Suyuti in the preface of his esteemed book Dur al-Manthur:

“Praise be to Allah.... who has
given me the ability to conduct a commentary of his Great Book
based on what I have received of the transmitted reports with high
valued chains”.

“Abd al Razaq narrated from Al-Thawri
that he said: ‘I have come to know that people from the Sahaba of
the Prophet [s] who used to recite the Quran were killed on the
day of Musaylama and with their deaths letters from the Quran were
lost.’”

The Nasibi belief that Umar decided to compile Quran when he
found that a verse had been lost with the death of a person who knew
it.

We read in Kanz ul Ummal, Volume 2 page 574:

Umar bin al-Khatab asked about a
verse of Allah's book, they answered: 'It was with a man who got
killed on day of Yamama (battle)'. He (Umar) said: 'We all shall
return to Allah'. Then he ordered to collect the Quran, therefore
he was the first one who collected it in one book.

The tradition is clear that the verse of the Quran Umar was
looking for was lost with the death of a person who knew it; and in
Sahih Bukhari, we read that the very fear of loosing the
Quran due to the deaths of Qur'a made Umar to compile it in a book
form!

Most of the Quran has been lost

In order to quote the statement of Abdullah Ibn Umar we have
sought reliance upon the following esteemed books of Ahle Sunnah:

Ismail bin Ibrahim narrated from
Ayub from Naf’ee from Ibn Umar who said: ‘Verily among you people
one would say that he has found the Quran whilst he is unaware of
what the total quantity of the Quran was, because most of the
Quran has been lost rather one should say that verily he has found
the Quran that has appeared.’

“Malik said among what had been
narrated by Ibn Wahb and Ibn Al Qasim and Ibn Abdul Hakam is that
when the first part of Surat Bara'at was lost, ‘Bismillah Al
Rahman Al Raheem’ was also lost along with it. It has also been
narrated from Ibn Ajlan that he heard that Surat Bara'at was equal
to the length of Surat Al Baqarah or approximately equal to it, so
the part was gone and because of that "Bismillah Al Rahman Al
Raheem" wasn't written between them (between the lost and the
remaining part) .”

The testimony of Sahabi Hudaifah that only one-fourth of Surah
Bar’at remains

“Huzaifah narrated that the
Surah which you call Taubah is actually Surah ‘Azaab [wrath] and
you just recite one fourth of what we used to recite.”

Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti has very confidently recorded the
traditions mentioning that Surah Bar'at was equal to Surah
Baqarah in length. At present, Surah Baqarah contains 286
verses whilst Surah Bar'at contains 129. If Surah Bar'at
was really equal to the length of Surah Barqah that would
mean approximately 157 verses have been lost from Surah Ba'rat.

Prophet's companions did not believe in the completeness of
the Quran as they attested to numerous verses being lost from Surah
Ahzab

“Ubai bin Ka’ab inquired of
someone: 'How many verses were there in the chapter of al-Ahzab?'
He replied, '72 or 73 verses.' Ubai bin Ka'b then said: ‘I had
seen this Surah more or equal to Surah Baqarah”‏

The testimony of Umar

We also read in Tafseer Dur e-Manthur:

“Ibn Mardawayh narrated from
Huzaifah that Umar said that Surah Ahzab was equal to Surah
Baqrah (in length)”

Aisha clearly believed in the incompleteness of Quran

We read in Tafseer Ruh al-Mani:

“Aisha narrates: "During the
life of the the Prophet (s), Surah Ahzab was read with 200
verses, when Uthman collected the verses, he could get along with
more verses than this.”

We also read in Tafseer Qurtubi:

“Aisha narrates: ‘Surah Ahzab
contained 200 verses during the lifetime of Prophet [s] but when
the Quran was collected we only found the amount that can be found
in the present Quran".

This tragedy happened due to Uthman but it seems that the author
of this tafseer lacked sufficient courage to cite his name.

“Aisha narrated that during the
lifetime of the Holy Prophet [s] 200 verses were recited in Surah
Ahzab but when Uthman collected the Mushaf, he only succeeded in
locating the present number of verses”

Aisha’s explicit statement suggests that Uthman was unsuccessful
in locating a large number of verses that were present during the
lifetime of Muhammad. It isn’t a small statement. According to
Aisha, the Muslims of today have been deprived of a large number of
verses that were in existence during the time of Muhammad. Aisha was
fully aware of the seriousness of this statement; and in it, we do
not find any evidence that the ‘lost’ verses were abrogated.

Sunni belief that a Surah equal to the length of Sura Bar’at
has been lost as endorsed by Imam Muslim and Hakim

Abu Harb b. Abu al-Aswad
reported on the authority of his father that Abu Musa al-Ash'ari
sent for the reciters of Basra. They came to him and they were
three hundred in number. They recited the Qur'an and he said: You
are the best among the inhabitants of Basra, for you are the
reciters among them. So continue to recite it. (But bear in mind)
that your reciting for a long time may not harden your hearts as
were hardened the hearts of those before you. We used to recite a
surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara'at .
I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I
remember out of it: " If there were two valleys full of riches,
for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing
would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust."…

In Jamai al-Usool, we read the testimony of Abi Ka'ab, a
companion of Muhammad, who was the first Imam of Taraweeh prayers
appointed by Umar:

“Ubai bin Ka'b narrates: “The
Prophet[s] said that he had been ordered to recite the Quran
amongst us and the Quran which He[s] had recited also contained
the following verse:
“Should a son of Adam own two valleys full of wealth, he should
seek a third valley and nothing would fill Ibn Adam's abdomen but
the soil”.

We read in Al-Muhazraat:

“Abdullah Ibn Masud had this in
his mushaf:
“Should a son of Adam own two valleys full of wealth, he should
seek a third valley and nothing would fill Ibn Adam's abdomen but
the soil” .

Similarly al-Hakim in his book, Al-Mustadrak, in the
section of commentary on the Quran (Vol 2, p. 224), reported that
Ubai Ibn Kaab said that the Messenger of God said to him:

“Certainly the Almighty
commanded me to read the Quran before you, and he read "The
unbelievers from the people of the Book and Should Ibn Adam ask
for a valley full of wealth and I grant it to him, he would ask
for another valley. And if I grant him that, he would ask for a
third valley. Nothing would fill the abdomen of Ibn Adam except
the soil. God accepts the repentance of anyone who repents. The
religion in the eyes of God is the Hanafiyah (Islam) rather than
Yahudiyya (Judaism) or Nasraniya (Christianity). Whoever does
good, his goodness will not be denied."

Al-Hakim wrote: “This is an authentic Hadith.” Al-Dhahabi also
considered it authentic in his commentary on al-Mustadrak.

When,

Al-Hakim said this is authentic according to the standards of
the two Sheikhs (Al-Bukhari and Muslim)

Al-Dhahabi also considered it authentic in his Commentary of
Al-Mustadrak, vol 2, pages 225-226,

Muslim report similarly to this from Abu Musa Ash'ari.

Anas bin Malik also testified to the lost verse of Ibn Adam as
recorded in Al-Musanaf, by Abdulrazaq, v10, p436,

then what will be the conclusion?

Thus, it is up to Nawasib to rule on the fate of the above Sahaba
before attacking Shias. Those, who claim that anyone who has
recorded a tradition which implies the incompleteness of the Quran
is a Kafir, should first issue this Fatwa against beloved Gurus Imam
Bukhari, Imam Muslim, al-Hakim & Co since they testified to such
absurd traditions being authentic and named their books as "Sahih"!

Two Surahs, namely Surah Hafd and Surah Khul’a, written in
the Quran of Ubai bin Ka'b, missing from the current Quran

According to Sunni sources there were two surahs, which were part
of that Quran according to the testimonies of the Sahaba and
Tabayeen. One of them was Surah Khula:

God, we ask help from You and we
ask repentance from You.
And we praise You, and we will not be infidels, and we remove and
we leave who are dissolute (Unrestrained by Your laws).

The other was Surah Hafd:

God its You Who we worship, and
for You we pray and prostrate,
and we curry favor with You and we rush for Your obedience, and we
hope for Your mercy, and we are afraid from Your anger,
Your suffer is purchasing the infidels."

Both of these Surahs were part of a copy of the Quran
possessed by the Sahabi Ubai bin Kaab, and were read in the
following Sunni books:

“Ubaid narrates that he came to
know that these two are the surahs from the Quran and are written
in the mushaf of Ibn Masud”

Umar used to recite Surah Khula and Surah Hafd in his prayers

We read in Tafseer al Itqan (Urdu), Vol 1, p. 175:

Umar Ibn al Khattab did Qunut
after Ruku [bowing] and recited:
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
God, we ask help from You and we ask repentance from You.
And we praise You, and we will not be infidels, and we remove and
we leave who are dissolute (Unrestrained by Your laws).

Itqan fi Uloom al-Quran, Vol 1, p. 77:

In the name of Allah, the
Beneficent, the Merciful
God its You Who we worship , and for You we pray and prostrate ,
and we curry favor with You and we rush for Your obedience , and
we hope for Your mercy , and we are afraid from Your anger ,
Your suffer is purchasing the infidels ."

God its You Who we praise, and
for You we pray and prostrate,
and we curry favor with You and we rush for Your obedience,
We are afraid from Your anger, and we hope for Your mercy
Your suffer is purchasing the infidels."

Umaya bin Abdullah would recite both Surahs in his prayers

In Itqan [Vol 1, p. 77], we read that a Tabayee, namely Umaya bin
Abdullah (d. 87 H), used to recite both of these Surahs in his
prayers:

Tabrani with Sahih chain has
narrated from Ibn Ishaq that he said: “In Khurasan Umaya bin
Abdullah bin Khalid bin Usaid did imamate for us in prayers and
recited both of these Surahs: ‘INNA NASTA3INUKA WA NASTAGHFIRUKA’

The Sahabi Ibn Masud’s testimony that Ali’s name was mentioned in
Quran, but deleted out by Uthman

We read in Holy Quran:

[Shakir 5:67] O Messenger!
Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord; and if you
do it not, then you have not delivered His message, and Allah will
protect you from the people; surely Allah will not guide the
unbelieving people.

We have relied on the following esteemed Sunni Tafseers of the
above mentioned verse.

“Hafiz Ahmed bin Musa bin
Mardawayh has narrated with his isnad from Abdullah Ibn Masud
that: "During the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (s) we used to
recite this verse as:
"O Apostle! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord;
'that 'Ali is the Maula of the Momineen', if you don't…."

Ibn Masud’s testimony that Ali’s name was mentioned in Surah
Ahzab as well.

[Shakir 33:25] And Allah turned
back the unbelievers in their rage; they did not obtain any
advantage, and Allah sufficed the believers in fighting; and Allah
is Strong, Mighty.

We have relied on the following esteemed Sunni Tafseers of above
mentioned verse:

Ibn Mardawayh narrated from Ibn
Masud that: “We used to recite this verse as: "and enough was
Allah for the believers in their fight 'via Ali ibn Abi Talib'.”

Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti writes in Dur al-Manthur:

“Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Mardawayh
and Ibn Asakir have narrated from Abdullah Ibn Masud that: “We
used to recite this verse in the following manner: “and enough was
Allah for the believers in their fight 'via Ali ibn Abi Talib.”

Ibn Masud’s testimony that the term, “Aal e-Muhammad”, was
also present in the Quran after the term “Aal e-Imran”

Thalabi recorded in his Tafsir from al-Amash from Abi Wael that
he said: 'I read in Abullah ibn Masud's book: 'The family of
Abraham, and the family of Imran and the family of Muhammad above
all people''

Shaqiq said: ‘I read in Abdullah ibn Masud's Mushaf ‘{Surely
Allah chose Adam and Nuh and the descendants of Ibrahim and the
descendants of Imran and descendants of Muhammad above the
nations.}’

Narrated Ibn Abbas:
When the Verse:--'And warn your tribe of near-kindred, and thy
group of selected people among them’ was revealed the Prophet
ascended the Safe (mountain) and started calling "O Bani Fihr! O
Bani 'Adi!" addressing various tribes of Quraish till they were
assembled. Those who could not come themselves, sent their
messengers to see what was there. Abu Lahab and other people from
Quraish came and the Prophet then said, "Suppose I told you that
there is an (enemy)…” [Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number
293]

Ibn Abbas has used the words, “and thy group of selected people
among them”, along with the words ‏"And warn your tribe of
near-kindred”, which haven’t been mentioned in the English version
of Sahih Bukhari. The translator has committed Tahreef in order to
hide the belief in Tahreef of the Quran that would expose his Imam
Bukhari or if we adopt the definition of Taqqiyah we can safely say
that the translator practiced Taqiyah in this case.

The words “‏And warn your tribe of near-kindred” can be read in
Holy Quran [verse 26:214] but the former, i.e. “and thy group of
selected people among them”, which (according to Sunni sources) had
been revealed along with “And warn your tribe of near-kindred”
cannot be found in this verse nor any where else in the Quran. Hence
the statement of Ibn Abbas proves that those words were also a part
of this verse and same view has been endorsed by Imam Bukhari and
Imam Muslim who included these words from Ibn Abbas in their
‘Sahih’.

Nasibi belief endorsed by Bukhari & Muslim: Some words, which
were recited by the Prophet and Sahaba have been deleted from
Surah Kahf

Presently we have got the following words in the verses 79 and 80
of Surah Kahf [trs. Sakir]:

As for the boat, it belonged to
(some) poor men who worked on the river and I wished that I should
damage it, and there was behind them a king who seized every boat
by force.
And as for the boy, his parents were believers and we feared lest
he should make disobedience and ingratitude to come upon them.

We read in Sahih Bukhari (Arabic), Book of Tafseer, Hadith
Number 4772:

“….Saeed bin Jubayr narrated
that Ibn Abbas used to recite:
'And in front (ahead) of them there was a king who used to seize
every serviceablev boat by force. [18.79] and used to recite: “and
as for the boy he was a disbeliever and his parents were
believers” [18.80]

Imam Tirmidhi recorded same thing and has declared the tradition
to be ‘Hasan Sahih’:
Sunan Tirmidhi [Arabic], Vol 11, p 427, Hadith 3442:

Note: The English translator of Sahih Bukhari 6:60:251 had
no other option than to put the word ‘serviceable’ within brackets,
so that the naïve readers may not see this tradition as the one
showing Ibn Abbas' belief of Tahreef in the Quran.

Regarding the belief of the Sahabi Ubai bin Kaab about these two
verses, we read in Tafseer Dur al-Manthur [Surah Kehf,
verse 79]:

“Ubai bin Ka'b used to recite
the cited verse as follows:
‘for there was after them a certain king who seized on every
serviceable boat by force’ [YA/KHUTHU KULLA SAFEENATIN
SALEHATGHASBAN].”

Al-Hasan bin Yahya said that
Abdul Razzak told us that Muammar narrated from Qatadah that in
Ibn Mas'ud's writings the verse was in this manner: ‘for there was
after them a certain king who seized on every serviceable boat by
force’.

We read in Sahih Muslim:

Sa'id b. jubair used to recite
(verses 79 and 80 of Sura Kahf) in this way: There was before them
a king who used to seize every boat by force which was in order,
the boy was an unbeliever.

Now the answer of the question as to why these esteem people used
to recite these two verses in this manner is that these verses were
revealed in the very manner from Muhammad as Imam Hakim records into
the following tradition, which has been declared ‘Sahih’ by him [Mustadrak
al-Hakim, Volume 7, page 85, Hadith 2913]:

Ibn Abbas stated: The Holy
Prophet used to recite: ‘for there was after them a certain king
who seized on every serviceable boat by force’.

The belief of Sipah-e-Sahaba and other Nawasib: An alteration has
taken place in Surah Talaq

We read in Surah Talaq:

‏[Yusufali 65:1] O Prophet! When
ye do divorce women, divorce them at their prescribed periods,…

But when we read authentic text of Nawasib, we come to know that
people, whom they regard highly, used to recite this verse with
words that cannot be found in the present Quran:

"O Prophet! When ye do divorce
women, divorce them in the beginning their prescribed periods”

Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti records this fact from the most
authentic sources of Ahle Sunnah in his Tafseer of the cited verse:

Malik and Shafiyee, Abdurazzaq
in Al-Musnaf, Ahmad, Abd bin Hamid, Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Al
Tirmidi, Al Nisa'i, Ibn Majah , Ibn Jurir, Ibn al Munzer, Abu
Ya'la Ibn Mardawah and Al Bayhaqi in his Sunan narrated from Ibn
Omar that he divorced his wife while she was in her period and
Rasulollah [s] was informed about this and He[s] got angry and
said : "Let him go to her and hold her until she ends her period,
then if he wished he can divorce her a pure divorce before he
touches her because this is the "Iddat" that God ordered how the
women will be divorced and then prophet [s] recited: "O Prophet!
When ye do divorce women, divorce them in the beginning their
prescribed periods”

We also read:

“Ibn Mardawah narrated from
Abi-l-Zubayr who from Ibn Umar that, during the time of the
Prophet [s] he divorced his wife while she was in her period, so
Omar went to the Prophet and mentioned the same to him [s] on
which He [s] said: "Order him to go to her and hold her until she
ends her period then he can divorce her if he wished" Thus Allah
revealed "O Prophet! When ye do divorce women, divorce themin the
beginning their prescribed periods”
Abi-l-Zubayr said: I heard Ibn Umar reciting it like this.”

We further read:

Abdul Razzaq and Abd bin Hamid
and Al Tabarani and Ibn Mardaweh narrated from Mujahid [ra] that
he said: One day a man asked Ibn Abbas: O Aba Abbas! I divorced my
wife 3 times" So Ibn Abbas said: "You didn't obey your God and
made your woman haram on you and you haven’t been pious so that
God makes for you a vent, one of you will divorce . Then he said:
"O Aba Abbas! God has said: "O Prophet! When ye do divorce women,
divorce them in the beginning their prescribed periods” , And like
this Ibn Abbas used to recite this verse .
From Online
Tafseer Dur e-Manthur.

In order to gauge the primary Sunni sources that contain the
above stance of Ibn Abbas, once can consult:

Whilst quoting this episode again, we would like to present the
online versions of this incident briefly remove any Nawasib
confusion so that they can recognize how their Imams recorded
traditions in their “Sahih” texts, which clearly show that the verse
[65:1] in the present Quran is not same as it that which was recited
by the Holy Prophet [s] and his Sahaba.

“… Ibn 'Umar (Allah be pleased
with them) said that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) then
recited this verse:" O Apostle, when you divorce women, divorce
them at the commencement of their prescribed period" (Ixv 1).

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
'Ukaz, Mijanna and Dhul-Majaz were markets during the Pre-islamic
Period. They (i.e. Muslims) considered it a sin to trade there
during the Hajj time (i.e. season), so this Verse was revealed:--
"There is no harm for you if you seek of the Bounty of your Lord
during the Hajj season." (2.198)

As you can see the words “during the Hajj season” has been used
in this hadith of Sahih Bukhari along with the words of verse 2:198
which we do not find the former in the present Quran. Imam Bukhari
has recorded the testimony of Ibn Abbas [ra] that the cited verse
was revealed in that precise manner.

Alteration in the verse of Mutah

The Quran we have in our hands have the verse in the following
manner:

[Shakir 4:24] … Then as to those
whom you profit by, give them their dowries as appointed; and
there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what
is appointed; surely Allah is Knowing, Wise.

In order to prove that the Sahaba and Tabayeen believed in some
words to be the a part of this verse, we have relied on the
following valued books of Ahle Sunnah:

“Narrated from Ibn Abbas that he
would read this verse with the words: “Then as to those whom you
profit by, for a prescribed period..”

Imam Hakim declared the tradition to be Sahih as per the grading
conditions set by Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim whilst Imam Dhahabi
in his margin of ‘Mustadrak’ deemed it Sahih on the conditions of
Imam Muslim. Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti records [Tafseer
Durre Manthur, Volume 2 pages 140-141]:

Narrated Abed bin Hamid, ibn
Jarir, al-Anbari in his book al-Musahif and al-Hakim and he
declared the chain as Sahih from Abi Nadhra who said: ‘I recited
before Ibn Abbas ‘ye derive benefit from them, give them their
dowers’. Ibn Abbas said: ‘ye derive benefit from them for a
prescribed period’. I said: ‘We don’t recite it like this’. Ibn
Abbas said: ‘By Allah it was revealed like that.’

The testimony of the Sahaba proves that the words “for a
prescribed period” were also there in Quran in the verse of Mutah;
and, if that was indeed the case, then it proves that Uthman
committed blatant transgression by deleting these words from the
Quran, which could only be to suppress news of the open secret about
the Caliph’s daughter Asma Bin Abu Bakr who practiced Mutah.

Umar’s opposition to Allah’s words by prohibiting Mutah

If Nawasib are going to play their usual ‘abrogation game’ then
they need to prove the abrogation of the words “for a prescribed
period” through Mutawatir narrations and also show us the abrogating
verse.

The mothers of the believers and other Sahaba did not believe in
the present Quran, and suggested that verse 2:238 had been tampered
with.

Abu Yunus, the freed slave of 'A'isha
said: 'A'isha ordered me to transcribe a copy of the Qur'an for
her and said: When you reach this verse: "Guard the prayers and
the middle prayer" (ii. 238), inform me; so when I reached it, I
informed her and she gave me dictation (like this): Guard the
prayers and the middle prayer and the afternoon prayer, and stand
up truly obedient to Allah. ' A'isha said: This is what I have
heard from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him).

Note: The words, “and the afternoon prayer” [WASALAT AL ASR],
cannot be found in the verse 2:238 in the Quran compiled by Uthman.

If Nawasib are still not satisfied, then allow us to advance the
words of a star from the ‘Farooq’ family from the following esteemed
Sunni books:

Let us quote from Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, wherein Suyuti
has recorded the narration from various high ranking primary sources
[Volume 1, page 721]:

Abu Rafee the slave of Hafsa
said: ‘Hafsa ordered me to write a Mushaf for her and said: ‘Come
to me when you come across this verse so that I dictate it to you
in the manner that I learnt it. Then when I came across the verse
‘{Guard the prayers}’ she said: ‘Write‘{Guard the prayers and the
middle prayer and the afternoon prayer}’’

We would also like to advance the words of Prophet's wife Umme
Salama recorded in “Al Musahif” authored by Sunni scholar Abi Bakr
Sajistani, the son of the author of Sunan Abu Daud:

“Umro Bin Rafa` narrates: “Umme
Salama asked me to write a Mushaf for her and she asked me to
inform her when I arrived at the verse “HAFITHOO AAALA ALSSALAWATI
WAALSSALATI ALWUSTA”. Therefore when I reached this verse I
informed her about it and she made me write this verse with the
words “ASALAT AL ASR” after the words “WASALAT AL WAST”.

Similar things have also been recorded from Ibn Abbas (Sunan
al-Kubra by Bayhaqi, v1:p463 & Tafseer Tabari, v2:p764)
and from the Sahabi al-Bara bin Azeb (al-Mustadrak, v2:p281).

We have come to know that according to the wives of the Prophet,
the verse is supposed to be:

Guard the prayers and the middle
prayer and the afternoon prayer, and stand up truly obedient to
Allah.

If Nawasib are going to bring their abrogation excuse here again
to explain the words, ‘and the afternoon prayer’, could they kindly
tell us why the wives of the Holy Prophet issued a special
instruction to the writers to insert these ‘abrogated’ words in
their respective Mushafs? We see that none of the said wives of
Muhammad said anything to suggest that these additional words, they
used in this verse, were abrogated; rather they all said: This is
what I have heard from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon
him).”

Aisha believed that the Quran compiled by Uthman was a victim
of tahreef

We shall rely on the following esteemed books of Ahle Sunnah to
prove this:

“Hameedah Bint Yunus narrates:
“My father [Abi] who was 80 years old recited for me the verse of
salutation from the Mushaf of Aisha with the following words:
i.e Allah and His angels send blessings on the Prophet: O ye that
believe! Send ye blessings on him, and salute him with all
respect. And on those who came to the first lines of prayers”
This verse was in this very manner before Uthman had made changes
to the Quran.”

The verse in the present Quran is as follows [Yusufali 33:56]:

Allah and His angels send
blessings on the Prophet: O ye that believe! Send ye blessings on
him, and salute him with all respect.

We can see that, according to the Mushaf of Aisha, “And on those
who came to the first lines of prayers” was the part of the verse
[33:56], whilst Hameedah bin Yunus leveled a serious charge against
Uthman by asserting ‘This verse was in this very manner before
Uthman had made changes to the Quran’.

Umar did not believe that the word ‘and’ was a part of Surah
Taubah, verse 100

We know that words like ‘and’ creates a huge difference in terms
of meanings in general literature, the case is greater with the Holy
Quran. Amazingly, we read that that in verse 100 of Surah Taubah,
Umar was believed that “WA” that means ‘and’ was not a part of this
verse, whilst it is in the present Quran. The verse in the present
Quran is as
follows:

Umar recited the verse 'WAALSSABIQOONA
AL-AWWALOONA MINA ALMUHAJIREENA WAAL-ANSARI ALLATHEENA ATABAOUHEM
BEAHSAN' and did not insert 'WA'[and] before 'ALLATHEENA'. Zaid
bin Thabit told him that it was 'WAL WAALLATHEENA' whilst Umar
said it was 'ALLATHEENA'. Zaid bin Thabit said: 'Umar knows
better'. Umar then summoned Ubai Bin Kaab, who said:'Yes, its
WAALLATHEENA'. Then Umar said: 'All right then recite it in this
way.'

“Umar recited the verse
“WAALSSABIQOONA AL-AWWALOONA MINA ALMUHAJIREENA WAAL-ANSARI
WAALLATHEENA” and did not insert “WA” before “ALLATHEENA”. Zaid
bin Thabit told him that it was “WAL WAALLATHEENA” whilst Umar
said it was “ALLATHEENA”. Zaid bin Thabit said: “Umar knows
better”. Umar summoned Ubai bin Ka`b.Ubai told Umar:“Yes! I have
taken this word in exactly the same way from the tongue of the
Holy Prophet [s]”. Umar asked: “Have you really taken this word
exactly from the Prophet’s tongue?” Abi got furious and replied:
“By Allah! He [swt] revealed the Quran on Gebrial and Gebrail
revealed it on the Prophet’s heart and Allah [swt] hasn’t taken
suggestions from Khatab or from his son when revealing the Quran.”

Umar believed in a different version of Surah Fatihah

We have relied on the following esteemed works of Ahle Sunnah to
prove this:

"A'mash states that in respect
of Halal and Haram, the difference between the copies [Mushaf] of
Abdullah Ibn Masud and Zaid Bin Thabit is that in Surah Infaal
words 'And know that whatever thing you gain, a fifth of it is for
Allah and for the Messenger and for the near of kin and the
orphans and the needy and the wayfarer' [Surah Infaal, verse 41]
and in Surah Hashr words 'Whatever Allah has restored to His
Messenger from the people of the towns, it is for Allah and for
the Messenger, and for the near of kin and the orphans and the
needy and the wayfarer and those who have left their homes in
Allah's cause' [Surah Hashr, verse 7].

According to Ubai, the word ‘FIL WAADI’ is missing from the
present Quran.

“Ibn Jarir said that Haroon
stated that Abi Bin Kaab used to recite the cited verse as:
“Behold! ye were climbing up the valley” [ITH TUSAAIDOONA FIL
WAADI]”.

We do not find the word “FIL WAADI” in the present Quran. What is
the Nasibi fatwa here? The narrators are yours, the books are yours,
the author is yours, the translator is yours, the publisher is
yours, so why this mulish attitude?

A letter has been added to the Mushaf of Uthman that was not
in the Mushaf of Ibn Masud

We read in Surah Yusuf:

… وَفَوْقَ كُلِّ ذِي عِلْمٍ عَلِيمٌ

[Shakir 12:76] .. and above
every one possessed of knowledge is the All-knowing one.

“Abd ARazaq and Sa'eed Ibn
Mansoor and Ishaq ibn Rahuwayh and Ibn Munzir and Al Bayhaqi have
narrated from Bujalah that he said: Umar passed by a youth who was
reading in a mushaf "The Prophet is closer to the Believers than
their own selves, and his wives are their mothers and he is their
father , so he (Umar) said: "Young boy talk about it". The youth
then said: “This is the mushaf of Ubay (Ubay bin Ka`b)". So Umar
went to Ubay and asked him about it (the addition) to which Ubay
replied: "I used to be busy with the Quran whilst you were busy
shopping in the markets."

“Al Firyabi ‏and Ibn Mardaweyh
and al Hakim and al Bayhaqi in his Sunan narrated from Ibn Abbas [ra]
that he used to read this verse:"The prophet has more authority
over the believers than themselve s and he is their father and his
wives are their mothers."

A verse recited by Ubay bin Ka’b is absent in the Quran; Tahrif
in Surah Fatah

We read in the Holy Quran [48:26]:

“When those who disbelieved
harbored in their hearts (feelings of) disdain, the disdain of
(the days of) ignorance, but Allah sent down His tranquillity on
His Messenger and on the believers, and made them keep the word of
guarding (against evil), and they were entitled to it and worthy
of it; and Allah is Cognizant of all things.”

We read in the following authentic sources of Ahle Sunnah
that Ubay bin K'ab, companion of the Holy Prophet, would recite some
additional words to this verse.

‘(48:26) When those who
disbelieved harbored in their hearts (feelings of) disdain, the
disdain of (the days of) ignorance, and if you had felt disdain
like they felt, the masjid e haram would have been corrupted ’

According to Ibn Masud, Ibn Abbas & Ubai bin Kaab, a deletion of
words has been committed in Surah Nisa verse 79

In order to prove that the Sahaba did not believe in the present
form of this verse, we have relied on the following esteemed Sunni
books:

Whatever benefit comes to you (O
man!), it is from Allah, and whatever misfortune befalls you, it
is from yourself.

But according to three great Sahaba namely Abdullah Ibn Masud,
Ibn Abbas and Ubai bin Kaab the words ‘and I have recorded for you’
have been deleted from the verse. We read [Tafseer
Dur al-Manthur, 2:597]:

Mujahid said: ‘According to Ubai
bin Kaab and Ibn Masud's recitation its: ‘Whatever benefit comes
to you (O man!), it is from Allah, and whatever misfortune befalls
you, it is from yoursel, and I have recorded that about you.’

Mujahid narrates that ibn Abbas
used to recite: ‘Whatever benefit comes to you (O man!), it is
from Allah, and whatever misfortune befalls you, it is from
yourself, and I have recorded that about you’

So, according to these three esteemed Sahaba, the words, ‘and I
have recorded that about you’, have been deleted from the version of
the Quran we today have in our hands and as usual, the present day Nawasib have to choose between these three esteemed Sahaba and
Uthman & Co. in order to attribute responsibility of committing
Tahreef in the Quran, it was either:

the above cited Sahaba who sinned by believing that the verse
contained additional words not present in the Quran, or,

it was Uthman & Co. who deleted these words and were hence
guilty of committing Tahreef to the Quran.

The goat of Aisha ate the verses of suckling from the Quran

In order to back up our point, we have relied on the following
esteemed books of Ahle Sunnah:

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with,
her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that
ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was
abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle
(may peace be upon him) died and it was before that time (found)
in the Holy Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims).

Whilst there is not much different between the original Arabic
words of the tradition and the official English translation, we
would like to mention a more accurate English translation of the
tradition:

“Aisha said: It had been
revealed in the Quran that ten clear sucklings make the marriage
unlawful, then it was abrogated by five clear suckling, then
Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) died and the verse was
recited as part of Quran.”

"When the verse of stoning and
verse of suckling descended, they were written on a piece of paper
and kept under my pillow. Following the demise of Prophet Muhammad
(S) a goat ate the piece of paper whilst we were mourning."

Aisha and Umar believed in the lost verse of stoning and
Umar's Taqiyya prevented him from adding it into the Quran

In this particular case, we are not going to dispute the
abrogation of the verse of Rajam rather our sole concern will
revolve around specifically to Aisha's and Umar's belief regarding
the said verse, according to whom this verse was ‘lost’ after the
death of Muhammad and not abrogated and therefore Umar intended to
write this verse into Quran with his own hands.

“….'Umar sat on the pulpit and
when the callmakers for the prayer had finished their call, 'Umar
stood up, and having glorified and praised Allah as He deserved,
he said:….. Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the
Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of
the Rajam (the stoning of married person (male & female) who
commits illegal sexual intercourse, and we did recite this Verse
and understood and memorized it. Allah's Apostle did carry out the
punishment of stoning and so did we after him.

I am afraid that after a long
time has passed, somebody will say, 'By Allah, we do not find the
Verse of the Rajam in Allah's Book,' and thus they will go astray
by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed…”

In another Hadith, which is narrated without any Hadith number in
Bukhari, we read about the Taqiyyah practiced by Umar, wherein he
failed to add those verses in Quran due to his fear of the people.
This tradition is in the title of one of the chapter of Bukhari.
Fortunately, it was translated by the translator. Sahih al-Bukhari,
Arabic-English version,
Vol 9, p212-13, between Traditions 281 and 282:

(21) CHAPTER. If a judge has to
witness in favor of a litigant when he is a judge or he had it
before he became a judge (can he pass a judgment in his favor
accordingly or should he refer the case to another judge before
whom he would bear witness?). And the judge Shuraih said to a
person who sought his witness, "Go to the ruler so that I may bear
witness (before him) for you." And 'Ikrima said, "Umar said to 'Abdur-Rahman
bin 'Auf, 'If I saw a man committing illegal sexual intercourse or
theft, and you were the ruler (what would you do)?. 'Abdur-Rahman
said, 'I would regard your witness as equal to the witness of any
other man among the Muslims. 'Umar said, 'You have said the
truth.' 'Umar added:
“If I were not afraid of the fact that people may say that 'Umar
has added to the Qur'an extra (verses), I would have written the
Verse al-Rajm (stoning to death of married adulterers) with my own
hands…”

We should point out that according to the strange testimony of
Imam Fakhruddin Razi, which we read in his book Al-Mahsool
Vol3:p348, the verse Umar was wishing to add in the Quran was
neither a part of the Quran nor was it an abrogated verse:

“I say that it wasn’t part of
Quran and Umar's statement refer to it, he said: ‘If I were not
afraid of the fact that people may say that Umar has added to the
Qur'an extra (verses), I would have written the Verse al-Rajm
(stoning to death of married adulterers) with my own hands’. If
that was a Quran or was an abrogated (verse), he wouldn’t have
said such thing.”

“Abd ul Razzak in Al Musannaf
from Ibn Abbas said : Umar bin Al Khattab ordered a pesron to
gather people for Salat of Jama'at, then he ascended on a pulpit,
praised God and said: "O people! Do not get afraid about the verse
of Al-Rajm because it is a verse that was revealed in the book of
Allah and we recited it, but it was lost [Zahab] with much of the
Quran gone with Muhammad and the proof of that is that the prophet
[s] has stoned and Abu Bakr has stoned and I have stoned and there
will come people from this nation who would deny the stoning.”

As for Aisha's belief regarding the verse of Rajam, we have
already read that [Sunan Ibn Majah [Arabic],
Book of Suckling, # 2020]:

"When the verse of stoning and
verse of suckling descended, they were written on a piece of paper
and kept under my pillow. Following the demise of Prophet Muhammad
(S) a goat ate the piece of paper whilst we were mourning."

Let us again make one point very clear that in this particular
case, we are not arguing whether or not the verse of stoning has
been abrogated rather our sole motive in this case is to point out
the belief of Tahreef in the Quran held by Umar and Aisha according
to whom the verse of stoning is still a part of the Quran that went
missing following the death of Prophet [s].

5. Sunni reports about mistakes
and changes in the Quran

According to Ibn Abbas there is a 'mistake' in Surah Ra’ad,
because of the sleepy scribe:

And even if there were a Quran
with which the mountains were made to pass away, or the earth were travelled over with it, or the dead were made to speak thereby;
nay! the commandment is wholly Allah's, Have not yet those who
believe known that if Allah please He would certainly guide all
the people? And (as for) those who disbelieve, there will not
cease to afflict them because of what they do a repelling
calamity, or it will alight close by their abodes, until the
promise of Allah comes about; surely Allah will not fail in (His)
promise

“Ibn Abbas recited this verse as
‘AFALAM YATBAIN ALLATHEENA’. He was told that it is ‘AFALAM
YAY-ASI ALLATHEENA’ to which Ibn Abbas replied: “The writer has
written YAY-ASI but I think that he may not have been wakeful at
that time of writing this word.”

“And Tabari and Abd bin Hamid
narrated with a Sahih chain containing all the narrators from the
rijal of Bukhari, from Ibn Abbas that he recited “AFALAM YATBAIN”
and said that the writer had written it [YAY-ASI] when he was
drowsy.”

According to the belief of the pious Tabayeen and Sahaba, there
is a ‘mistake’ in Surah Aal e-Imran

We read in the Quran[Shakir 3:81]:

And when Allah made a covenant
through the prophets: Certainly what I have given you of Book and
wisdom-- then an messenger comes to you verifying that which is
with you, you must believe in him, and you must aid him. He said:
Do you affirm and accept My compact in this (matter)? They said:
We do affirm. He said: Then bear witness, and I (too) am of the
bearers of witness with you.

Al-Rabee used to read: 'and
Allah made a covenant with the people who were given the book'. He
said: ‘And that is how Ubai bin Kaab used to read it.’

Muhammad bin Amro narrated from
Abu Asim from Isa from Ibn Abi Nujaih from Mujahid who said about
the verse: “And when Allah made a covenant through the prophets:
Certainly what I have given you of Book and wisdom”. He said: ‘It
is a mistake of the scribes. In the recitation of Ibn Masud it was
in this manner: “And Allah made a covenant with the people who
were given the book”’.

Sunni belief that a word in Surah Bani Israil got changed
due to rough use of ink by the scribe

Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti records in Al-Itqan 1:542:

Al-Dahak was asked: 'How do you
recite the verse 'Wa Qaza Rabuka'?'. He replied: 'Neither we nor
Ibn Abbas used to recite this verse in this manner, actually its "Wa
wasa Rabuka". This verse used to be read and written like this but
your writer diped his pen into ink pot, he got more ink than
required and hence 'Waa' (و) got mixed up with 'Saad' (ص)'.

Thus we learned from this narration that in Surah Bani Israil
verse 23, the word 'Qaza' is incorrect while the 'actual' word
before the 'mistake' of the scribe was 'Wasa'!

Umar and other Sahaba did not believe in present Quran as there
is an abrogated word in Surah Juma, while they knew the
‘correct’ word

Abu Ubaid narrated in his (book)
al-Fadhael and Saeed bin Mansur, Ibn Abi Shayba, Ibn al-Munder and
Ibn al-Anbari in the Masahif (book) from Kharsha bin al-Hur that
he said: ‘Umar bin al-Khatab saw me carrying a tablet written in
it ‘{when the call is made for prayer on Friday, then hasten to
the remembrance of Allah}(FAISAAAW ILA THIKRI ALLAH)’. He (Umar)
asked: ‘Who dictated this to you?’ I replied: ‘Ubai bin Kaab’. He
said: ‘Ubai recited the abrogated (part), he (Umar) recited it
‘FAMZO ILA THIKRI ALLAH’

“Narrated by Saad bin Mansur and
he clarified the medium [narrator] between the [narrator] Ibrahim
and Umar who is Kharsha ibn al Hurr therefore the chain is Sahih.”

Imam AbdulRazaq Sanani records in his Musnaf:

Abdulrazaq narrated from Mu'amar
and others from al-Zuhari from Salem from Ibn Umar who said: ‘Umar
used to recite the verse of Juma chapter in this manner: ‘FAMZO
ILA THIKRI ALLAH’ until he passed away.’

Abdullah bin Masud recited it
as:
“And ask those whom We sent before you of Our Messengers”

Now apart from this version of the verse recited by Ibn Masud,
Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti has recorded yet another version, recited by
Ibn Masud, which again is not the one we read today [Tafseer
Dur al-Manthur 7:382]:

In Ibn Masud's recitation: ‘And
ask those who read the book before you’

Notice the big difference between the two versions of this verse
recited by Ibn Masud and the one in our Quran. Both the versions of
Ibn Masud are demanding the Prophet to ask the people to whom Allah
[swt] had sent prophets before, whilst the verse we recite today is
demanding the Muhammad to ask those prophets. Moreover, the second
version of Ibn Masud is considerably different than the others as it
contains the words ‘who read the book’.

Interestingly, after recording the tradition, Ibn Kathir then
says:

“Yet this appears to be an
explanation rather than an alternate version of recitation. And
Allah knows best.”

There are numerous traditions, according to which, Ibn Masud and
his companions had the Quranic verses in their Mushafs with words
that differ from the manner in which Muslims recite verses today.
Are all of those traditions going to be explained away as
explanations rather than alternate verses?

Ibn Bashar narrated from
Muhammad bin Jaffar from Shu'aba from Abi Bashir from Saeed bin
Jubair from Ibn Abbas about this verse ‘{O you who believe! Do not
enter houses other than your own houses until you have asked
permission (TASTA/NISOO) and saluted their inmates}’. He said: ‘It
is a mistake by the scribe. ‘{until you have asked permission (TASTAZINO)
and saluted their inmates}’.

Moreover we read a similar testimony by one of the revered
Tabayeen namely Saeed bin Jubair:

Ibn al-Muthana narrated from Wahab bin Jarir from Shu'aba from
Abi Beshr from Saeed bin Jubair the same but he added: ‘It is
supposed to be '{until you have asked permission (TASTAZINO)}', but
it was a mistake of the scribe'

Ali bin al-Hussain narrated from
Nasr bin Ali from his father from Shebl bin Abaad from Qays bin
Saad from Atta from Ibn Abbas‘{Allah is the light of the heavens
and the earth; a likeness of His light is as a niche}’. He said:
‘This is a mistake by the scribe, He (Allah) is greater than to be
his light as a niche, He said (that its):‘{a likeness of the
believer's light is as a niche}’’.

See the big difference between the two versions of this verse.
According to Mushaf of Uthman, we believe the the verse is talking
about Allah [swt]while Ibn Abbas [ra] not only unequivocally
rejected this but advanced the ‘correct’ version of this words
according to which this verse is talking about‘believers’.

"There is disagreement over 'ALMUQEEMEENA
ALSSALAT'. Aisha [ra] and Aban bin Uthman said that was written in
the Quran due to a mistake on the part of the transcriber. Its
correction is essential and it should be written as 'ALMUQEEMOONA
ALSSALAT'. Similarly in Surah Maidah 'AALSSABI-OONA' and in Surah
Taha 'IN HATHANI LASAHIRANI' have also been written due to the
mistake of scribes. Uthman stated that he had seen some mistakes
in the Quran and Arabs would corret the through their language and
they had asked him to change them but he said that these mistakes
did not change Haram to Halal and vice versa"

We should also mention that Imam of Nawasib Ibn Taimiyah has
written in his Minhaj, under the discussion of Tafseer
Thalabi that:

“Baghwi’s Tafseer is the
abridged form of Thalabi’s Tafseer and he (Baghwi) didn’t include
fabrications in his Tafseer”

We read in Tafseer Kabeer:

“When Uthman saw his [compiled]
Quran he stated that he observed some mistakes that would be
corrected by the Arabs through their language.”

We read in al-Musahif:

“When the Quran was written it
was brought to Uthman who saw mistakes in its scripture. He said
that there was no need to correct them, as the Arabs would make
the correction themselves”

One of the beloved scholars of Deobandies namely Qazi Thanaullah
Uthmani Pani Patti in his commentary of verse 162 of Surah Nisa
records in his esteemed work
Tafseer Mahzari 3:215,216 (Published by Daarul
Isha’t Karachi):

“Baghwi has written the
statements of Aisha [ra] and Aban Bin Uthman [ra] that
‘ALMUQEEMOONA ALSSALAT’ should have been written at this place.
Similarly ‘WAALSSABI-OON’ in Surah Maidah’s verse ‘INNA ALLATHEENA
AMANOO WAALLATHEENA HADOO WAALSSABI-OON’ and ‘HATHANI’ in the
verse ‘IN HATHANI LASAHIRANI’ are the mistakes of writer (It
should have been SABI-EEN & HATHAIN respectively). Hadrat Uthman [ra]
had also stated that there were some mistakes (of writing) in the
Mushaf and Arabs whilst reciting them would make the corrections
themselves, through their language. When asked why he did not make
the amendments, Uthman asked that it remain the same as it does
not alter Halal to Haram and Haram to Halal.”

“Akramah states that when
Mushafs were written, they were presented before Uthman and he
found some incorrect words written in them and then said that they
shouldn’t be changed as Arabs would themselves make the
corrections. Or he said that they would themselves correct the
pronunciations (vowel points, diacritics). Had the narrator been
from the tribe of Thaqeef and the writer been from the tribe of
Hadheel, these mistakes wouldn’t have been in the Mushaf.”

“Aban bin Uthman recited the
cited verse [IN HATHANI LASAHIRANI] before his father Uthman.
Uthman said: “It is incorrect”. Someone asked him: “Why don’t you
correct it?”. Uthman replied: “Leave it there, it doesn’t make any
difference in respect of what is Halal and Haram’”.

Qazi Shawkani also records Uthman’s blasphemy against the Quran.
We read in Fatah al-Qadeer:

“There are traditions according to which Uthman said that certain
Quranic words were wrong due to mistakes committed by writers”

A verse in Surah Dhariyat does not
contain the same words taught by Muhammad to his Sahabahs

In Surah Dhariyat, verse 51, we read the following verse:

"Surely Allah is the Bestower of sustenance, the Lord of Power,
the Strong"

According to Sunni scholars, this is not the form of verse that
was taught by the Holy Prophet to the Sahabi, Abdullah Ibn Masud.
We read in Sunan Tirmidi:

The Messenger of Allah taught me to recite: "I am the Bestower of
sustenance, the Lord of Power, the Strong".

What is the view of Ahle Sunnah regarding the words taught by the
Muhammad to Ibn Masud? According to Sunni traditions, the Prophet
ordered his adherents to learn the Quran from Ibn Masud. The
tradition is deemed Hassan Sahih by Imam Abu Isa Ibn Isa Tirmidi.

Belief of the Hinda Haq Chaar Yaari cult: Verse 25 of Surah Noor
is different from what the Sahaba and the Prophet recited

Now we read in Tafser Tabari 18:141 that the Sahabi
Ubai bin Kaab had this verse in his compilation in a shuffled
manner:

Jarir said: ‘I read it in Ubai bin Kaab’s Mushaf as ‘Allah the just
will pay back to them their reward in full (YUWAFFEEHIMU ALLAHU
ALHAQ DEENAHUM)’

Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti has recorded that the Prophet recited the same verse in an even more different manner
[Tafseer Dur e-Manthur 5:36]:

Tabarani and Ibn Mardweh narrated from Behz bin Hakim from his
father from his grand father that the Prophet (pbuh) recited:
‘{Allahthe just will pay back to them in full their reward} (YUWAFFEEHI
ALLAHU ALHAQ DEENAHUM)’

Please ponder over the big difference between the verses recited by
Muhammad Ubai bin Kaab and the version that is present in the
mushaf of Uthman. It has the word “ALHAQ” after “ALLAH” and the word
“DEENAHUM” after the “ALHAQ” whereas in the Quran compiled by Uthman
the word “DEENAHUM” is present between the words “ALLAH” and “ALHAQ”
which results in the emergence of a term ‘Allah the just’ according
to the Prophet and Ubai. Moreover, there is another difference in
the version of the verse (24:25) the Prophet [s] believed in and
what we have today and the difference is in the word “YUWAFFEEHIMU”
which is plural whilst the Prophet used to believe in a word
“AFFEEHI” that was singular.

Sahabi Ibn Masud attested to a different word in Surah 93,
verse 8

In the Holy Quran (93:8) we read:

“Did He not find thee destitute and enrich (thee)?”

Imam Suyuti in Tafseer Dur al-Manthur and Ibn Attia al-Andalusi
in al-Muharar al-Wajiz, Volume 5 page 495 have recorded that a great
Sahabi did not believe in the aforesaid words of the Quran, rather
he believed in a different form of this verse [Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, 8:544]:

Narrated Ibn al-Anbari in al-Masahif from al-Amash that he said:
‘Ibn Masud recited it like this: ‘He found you lacking and enriched
you’

The Quran has used the word ‘Aael’ which means that he had money
but not enough, thus he was in need whereas the Sahabi Ibn Masud
believed in the word ‘Adeem’ which means he had nothing at all.
Moreover, the grammars of the two forms of verse are entirely
different from one another since the form of verse we have today is
interrogative whilst Ibn Masud believed in an affirmative form of
the verse.

Ibn Masud believed in a different word in Surah 4 verse 40

In the Holy Quran (4:40) we read:

“Surely Allah does not do injustice to the weight of an atom.”

Now Imam Suyuti in
Tafseer Dur al-Manthur 2:539,
Imam Abu Ishaq Thalabi in Tafseer Thalabi, Volume 3 page 308 and Ibn
Attia al-Andalusi in al-Muharar al-Wajiz, Volume 2 page 254 have
recorded that Abdullah Ibn Masud did not believe in the aforesaid
Quranic verse rather he believed in a different version of this
verse:

Ibn Abi Dawood recorded in al-Masahif (book) from Atta from Abdullah
(Ibn Masud) that he recited: ‘Surely Allah does not do injustice to
the weight of an ant’

We can see the difference between the two versions of this verse:
the version we have today of this verse assures us that Allah does
not do injustice even to the weight of ‘an atom’, whilst Abdullah Ibn Masud believed that Allah does not do injustice even to the weight
of ‘an ant’—that is, a name that has been given to a particular
creature.

Ibn Masud read it as "AAASIRU ANBAH" (pressing grapes) and he
(Ibn Masud) said: 'By Allah, I heard it from Allah's Messenger
likewise.'

So here we learnt that in the Quran compiled by Uthman we read
“AAASIRU KHAMRAN” (pressing wine) instead of “ASR ANBAH” (pressing
grapes), which, according to great Sahabi Ibn Masud, was not only the
word he believed in but that was the (correct) word the Muhammad had
taught him.

Aisha and Ibn Abbas believed in a different version of
Surah Nisa, verse 117

But our opponents believe that one of their beloved Sahaba, namely
Abdullah Ibn Masud, did not believe 'DALLEEN' (astray) to be the
actual word that was revealed in this verse, but it was 'JAHILEEN'
(ignorant) [Tafseer Dur al-Manthur 6:291]:

Ibn Juraij said: 'According to Ibn Masud's recitation its: 'I did it
then, when I was of those who are ignorant (JAHILEEN).''

Tahreef in Surah Yusuf

Another example Tahreef of the Quran committed by Uthman bin Abi
Sheybah was with regards to the verse 12:70:

So when he furnished them with their provisions…

Imam Dhahabi has recorded:

Ali ibn Muhammad Ibn Kas said that Ibrahim al-Khisas said: Uthman
ibn Abi Sheybah read: 'And when he provided them with their ship',
on that they told Uthman that it should be 'And when he provided
them with their provisions'. He replied: ‘I and my brother do not
recite on the recitation of Asim.''

The famous satanic verses

We are quoting the famous incident of Gharaniq from the following
esteemed Sunni sources:

Al-Bazaar and Al-Tabarani and Ibn Mardaweh and al-Ziya' have
narrated through a chain of all trustworthy (Thiqa) narrators by the
way of Saeed Ibn Jubayr, from Ibn Abbas that Prophet recited the
words of Surah Najm in the following manner:

"Have you then considered the Lat and the Uzza And Manat, the
third, the last? These are the lofty (idols), verily their
intercession is sought after."

Mushrakeen became delighted on hearing this from Holy Prophet
and said that their idols have also been mentioned in Quran. Then Gebrail came and said to Prophet: "Recite same revelation and
Quran which I have brought." Prophet again recited the words:

"Have you then considered the Lat and the Uzza And Manat, the
third, the last? These are the lofty (idols), verily their
intercession is sought after."

Gebrail said: "I had not brought these words, these are from
Satan". Then the
verse
22:52 was revealed:

"And We did not send before you
any messenger or prophet, but when he desired, the Shaitan made a
suggestion respecting his desire; but Allah annuls that which the
Shaitan casts, then does Allah establish His communications, and
Allah is Knowing, Wise".

Besdies this, Allamah Jalauddin Suyuti records similar versions
of this incident from several other Sahih chains, for example:

“Ibn Jarir and Ibn al-Munder and Ibn Abi Hatim and Ibn Mardaweh
have narrated through a Sahih chain by the way of Saeed Ibn Jubayr
who said...”

"Abd bin Hamid and Ibn Jarir by the way of Yunis, from Ibn Shahab
narrated:... with Mursal Sahih chain."

Qadhi Thanaullah Pani Patti Uthmani in his commentary of the
above mentioned verse adopted the questions based on casting doubts
over the authenticity of the episode like his Imams but had no
choice than to quote their statements as they deemed the episode to
be true:

“...However the tradition we previously mentioned from Saeed bin
Jubayr by Bazar, Ibn Mardwaeh and Tabarani is indeed successive [Mutawatur]
and strong [Qawi]. Ibn Hajar Asqalani has stated that from the
abundance of traditions reported, it is deemed that there is some
truth in it…”

Not only these but Imam Ibn Abi Bakar al-Haythami is also among
those Sunni scholars, who deemed the incident to be authentic [Sahih]
as he stated after recording the tradition [Majma al-Zawadi 7:248
# 11376]:

"Al-Bazar and Tabarani narrated it and they added '{the penalty
of a Mighty Day}' in the day of Badr, the narrators are the
narrators of Sahih."

Imam Ibn Tamiyah also believed that Holy Prophet recited
Satanic verses and in this regard he cites the testimony of his
beloved Salaf. He writes [Minhaj Sunnah 2:409]:

“What occurred with suratul Najm and its recitation ‘These are
the lofty (idols), verily their intercession is sought after’ is
well known amongst the Salaf; that this was recited by Rasulullah
and then Allah abrogated it.”

The testimony of Shaykh Sherani that, his fear of investigating
individuals prevented him from citing all the verses that were
destroyed to enable the usage of the Uthmani manuscript.

We read in 'Kabreyat Ahmer', p. 143 (published in Egypt) the
following statement of Allamah Abdul Wahab Sherani:

“Had there been no fear of weak hearts going astray and knowledge
reaching those that were ineligible, I would have cited all those
verses that were lost from the Mushaf of Uthman, nobody disagrees
with the contents of the Uthmani Quran”

“The tahreef of meanings has not taken place in a lesser amount. In
my eyes, this is proved by research that the tahreef of words has
taken place in this Quran. This tahreef was done either
intentionally or by mistake.”

This person has been given the title of “Imam al-Asr” [Imam of
the present time]. We should point out the revereence this
scholar enjoys amongst Deobandies. Another grand scholar of
Deobandis Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi praised Anwar Shah Kashmiri in
the following words:

“Once Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi sat in a lecture of Allama
Kashmiri. After hearing this lecture, Hadhrat Thanvi said: “Every
sentence of Shah Saheb can be turned in to a book” (Anwarul Bari,
v.2, p.235). Hadhrat Thanvi also said: “I have benefited so much
from Hadhrat Shah Saheb that his respect that I have in my heart is
on par with the respect that my other teachers occupy, even though I
was never his student” (Anwarul Bari 2:235).”

Renowned Sunni scholar Dr. Israr Ahmed’s testimony: The current
Quran is not the real one; it has mistakes in it.

There are very few Sunni Muslims, who are unfamiliar with Dr. Israr
Ahmed particularly those from the Indian sub continent. Details
about him can be ascertained from his
website. A few months ago he stated clearly that the present
Quran is corrupted and is not the same as the one guaranteed
protection by Allah. This statement created outrage amongst the Deobandi
mullahs that resulted in Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI), one of the
largest Deobandi organizations in Pakistan, attacking him in their monthly
magazine through the following interesting comments [Monthly Zarb-e-Haq, May 2005, Madressa Mehmoodia,
Karachi]:

THE CURRENT Quran CONTAINS MISTAKES AND IS NOT THE REAL ONE: DR. ISRAR

Like Qadianis those that do not believe in the protection of
Quran
should likewise be declared infidels under the constitution of
Pakistan. No scholar, not even Christians or Jews have never had the gaul to suggest such about the
Quran, Commentary by Abdul Quddus
Baloch

Karachi (representative of Zarb-e-Haq): Internationally famed,
renowned scholar Dr. Israr Ahmed; the founder of organizations like
Khudam al Quran, Tanzeem-e-Islami and Tehreek-e-Khilafat has
preached to the public in public gatherings, writings and video
cassettes that the Quran we have in our possession is not the real
one rather it is a copy. The real Quran is written on Loh-e-Mehfooz
which is free from all mistakes whilst the Quran possessed by the
Ummah has mistakes in it. Whilst providing a commentary of the
verses dealing with the protection of the Quran Dr. Israr asserted
that the promise is not about the Quran possessed by the Ummah,
rather it is about the Quran of Loh-e-Mehfooz. “Surely We have
revealed the Reminder and We will most surely be its guardian” do
not refer to the copy of Allah’s book that is in our hands rather
these verses were revealed for the verses written on Loh-e-Mehfooz.
Allah also says "None touches save the purified ones" this verse
likewise does not refer to the copy of the Quran we possess, that is
the Usmani scripture that is unprotected and can be touched by
impure and pure people.

Zarb-e-Haq’s Commentary: …. the intellectual commentaries of the
Ulema exist in their academic and non academic books. Whilst one can
also deem such commentaries as incorrect, it remains an unequivocal
fact that none of these scholars of commentary ever had doubts over
the authenticity of the Quran. This Quranic verses are deemed
sufficient enough about the protection of the present Quran. Qazi
Abdul Kareem Kalachi kept strking his head on account of the
statement of Maulana Anwar Shah Kashmiri about Tahreef of words in
the Quran in his ‘Faiz al Baari’. Had Maulana Anwar Shah Kashmiri
like Dr. Israr spoken these words in public gatherings or common
gatherings of scholars then he would have been excommunicated from
Islam and would have been forced for repent…”

Let us first introduce this personality from the pen of Imam Dhahabi,
who said: ‘He is an Imam, a major Hafiz and Mufasir’ (Siar Alam
Alnubala, 11:151). Imam ibn Haban mentioned him in his book of
Thiqah narrators i.e. al-Thuqat, 8:454. Imam al-Ejli
declared him ‘Thiqah’ (Marifat al-Thuqat 2:130) as did Imam Ibn Moin (Tazkirat al-Hufaz 2:444), whilst Imam Abu Hatim Al-Razi
graded him ‘Seduq’ (Al-Jarh wa al-Tadil 6:167).

Tahreef in Surah Fil

Imam Dahabi in his esteemed book, Siyar Alam al Nubla 11:153 records:

''Darqutni said: Ahmed ibn kamil has narrated that Al Hasan ibn
Alhabab said that Uthman ibn Abi Sheybah recited for them in the
tafsir 'Have you not considered how your Lord dealt with the
possessors of the elephant?’ that he recited it as: ‘Alif-lam-meem’”.

As you know, there are some words/letters in the Quran known as
Al-Muqattaat, i.e. the abbreviated letters, that Muslims
believe are words whose true meaning is known only to Allah. One of those
words/letters is الم, i.e this term is recited making its letters
separate in this manner “Alif-lam-meem”. Examples wherein this term
exist are in the opening verses of Surah Baqarah and Surah Aal e-Imran:

“Abu Muhammad said: This is the description of Uthman's work that
(was compiled) in the presence of the companions. Whilst copying the
Mushafs he burnt what he burnt from them from what he had changed
intentionally or by mistake.”

This glorious scholar of Ahle Sunnah needs no introduction but
still allow us to cite some scholarly Sunni opinions of Ibn Hazm.
Ibn Khalkan records in Wafiat Al-Ay'an 3:13:

“Al-Hamidi said: We never witnessed anyone as smart or quick in
memory, generous or religious as him”

Ibn Hajar Asqlani records in Lisan Al-Mizan 4:198:

S'aeed bin Ahmad Al-Rubay said: ‘In Andlus (Spain) Ibn Hazm was
the most knowledgeable amongst the people in Islamic knowledge and
the most acquired in knowledge, in addition to this, he is expanded
in statements, rhetoric, biography and origins/breed.’

What medication do the Nawasib take that protects their minds
from thinking negatively of the great Ulema, who cast doubts over the
authenticity of the Quran? If such a protective taken can be applied
to curtail having bad thoughts of these grand Ulema, why is it not
likewise taken to understand Shia traditions on tahreef?

Ibn Taimiyah testified that the Salaf used to deny & change
Quranic verses

The beloved Imam Ibn Taymiyyah after acknowledging that the Sahaba
used to curse asserted [Majmua al-Fatawa 12:492]:

“And likewise some of the Salaf denied words form of the
Quran
such as the denial of some of them of the verse, ‘Have not yet those
who believe known’ (13:31) and them saying that its ‘Has it not beenmade clear to those who believe’ and the denial of reading of
the verse by others (of the Salaf) ‘And your Lord has ordained (quthiyah)
that you worship none but He’ and they said that its ‘And you Lord
has advised (wassa)’ and some of them used to delete Al-Mu’waithatayn
from their copies of the Quran (mushaf) and others used to write a
surah called Suratul Qunut (!) and this is a known mistake that is
known by consensus (Ijma), and via multiple successive transmission
(matawatur).

And even with this the tawatur had not been established for them and
so they are not kuffar. It is only after showing one the mutawatir
proof (that if he rejects it) then he is kafir”

Ibn Tamiyah after accepting a fact sought to defend the
indefensible. How did he know that the tawatur was not established
for Salaf? The Sahaba benefited from the company of the Holy
Prophet and yet we see evidences of them not reciting or
rejecting parts of Quran we currently have in our possession.
Is this not shameful?

According to Ahle Sunnah, there are some mistakes in the Quran, which
Muhammad and companions were unaware, but the Sunni Imam Hamzah bin
Ziyat saw Allah in his dream, who directed him to make the amendments.

“Hamzah Bin Ziyat said: ‘When I saw Allah [swt], I recited the
words of Surah Yaseen “Tanzeel ul Aziz” and recited the letter
“Laam” with “Zahhah” in it. Allah [swt] admonished me and ordered to
recite Tanzeel with the “Fakhah” of Laam as He [swt] had revealed it
like that. Moreover when I recited the verse “WAANA IKHTARTUKA” of
Surah Taha before the Almighty Allah [swt], He [swt] again rebuked
me and ordered me to recite it “WAANA IKHTARTAKA”.

The intial words uttered by the Sunni Imam exist in the present
Quran, and differ to those that Allah directed him to recite.
From this narration, it is evident that Hafiz Hamzah Bin Ziyat was
superior to Abu Bakar, Umar and Uthman, since despite their being
Caliphs, Allah did not deem them worthy enough to appear in
their dreams, and instruct them of the correct recitals.

Moreover we read in the same book [Al-Yawaqeet wa al-Jawahir 1:119]:

“Ulema have narrated that many Salaf had the privilege of viewing
Allah [swt] in their dreams and amongst them Imam Ahmed, Hamzah bin
Ziyat and Abu Hanifah head the list. Hamzah bin Ziyat says that when
he saw Allah [swt] and recited Surah Yaseen before Him, He [swt]
rectified him at two points in its recitation.”

It is worth noting that the author of ‘Al-Yawaqiyat’ counted
Ibn Hamzah amongst the prestigious Salaf; Ibn Hajar Asqalani in
Taqreeb al Tehdeeb p. 83 and in Tahdib al-Tahdib 3:28 graded him as authentic and truthful figures and showered him
with such epithets as Rijlan, Salehan and Sidooqan. He was born in
80H and died at the age of 56. Did the process involving abrogation
of verses and recitation continue until that period? By that time,
the compilers of the Uthmani manuscript were in their graves. Abdul
Wahab Sherani has been named as Al-Faqih al-Hadith in a book of Ahle Sunnah,
namely Kashf al-Zanoon 5:641.

Comment

Comment

Great piece of research. I wish all of the Qur'an was lost. This would have saved many lives.

Name: Philip SaenzDate: Friday January 09, 2009Time: 10:54:14 -0500

Comment

If Muslim Imams are the only persons who understand The Muslim War Manual, the Qur'an for short, then why do the Muslim Imams contradict each other? Why has Islam, all run by Muslim Imams, slintered into 72 contradictory Muslim sects, that are warring against each other? Something is lacking, don't you think? Questions from an "infidel," a Catholic.

Name: Ib-Ra-HimaDate: Friday January 09, 2009Time: 11:02:41 -0500

Comment

Good work on the research done to uncover so many discrepancies in the supposedly immutable Quran Amar. I just wonder if in the course of this compilation of evidence to the contrary, we ever wonder about the logic that is the impetus of the detracting process. In other words, what does it mean to question a lie by investigating the validity of its details? And further for the sake of avoiding being stuck in the inertia of time and energy spent disproving a lie, perhaps it might serve us better to spend it discovering what then is the truth? Just my thoughts... I do get the point though because it does take considerable effort to get a "believer" to actually think outside of the box or container of the "belief system" in order to see it for the lie that it is. So we must expend great effort dismantling its flawed construction, as ex-detainees, to create an opening through which those still entrapped could perhaps see it as it truly is.
Peace,
Ibrahima

Name: Charles MartelDate: Friday January 09, 2009Time: 11:41:04 -0500

Comment

I had created my own presentation on the Koran for my church and had about 40% of this, but this article masterfully expands on what I had found.
If I ever do my presentation again, I will cite your excellent additional data and mention this site.

Comment

Each time I read these types of essays (all good by the way), it just keeps proving and proving over and over and over again that this book is not divinely inspired, but human created. Anyone, after the idiot died, could have gone to a scribe and say, let me know when you get to this part and then CHANGE IT. And say that they heard idiot boy say it. When will the madness end???? When will those that follow this cult (and it is a cult because any time you THREATEN someone's life to stay in it, it ceases to be a legit religion, even though I'm not too hip on organized religions of any kind) ever wake up? Oh wait, only after they are dead and finally know the truth as to what's on the other side will they finally wakeup and know that the book lied to them.

Comment

why do you have to lie amar shit head shit face dont compare you should delete this web site you talking shit out of your ass again, come on men dont be like that stop snitch in who ever wrote this will die and there kids sorry but thats just the way it is hahaha ha

Name: seekerDate: Friday January 09, 2009Time: 21:44:24 -0500

Comment

It will be recalled that in the story of Abu Bakr's Qur’an, it was the prophet's secretary Zaid ibn Thabit who wrote everything down. Apparently unaware that he had done it all before, ‘Uthman commissioned ibn Thabit to prepare an official, standard text. Supposedly, this was done with the aid of three representatives of noble Meccan families, who compared a copy of unknown provenance in the possession of ‘Uthman with the 'leaves' (Arabic suhuf) owned by ‘Umar's daughter Hafsa - the same manuscript that ten years earlier Zaid is supposed to have written out himself! Competing with the caliphs were the Qurra (Arabic for 'reciters' or 'readers') - men who were the masters of large volumes of Qur’anic verbiage and could recite the supposed revelations when called upon to lead in worship or settle disputes. Many Qurra claimed to have actually learned their verses from Mohammed himself, although many by now were second or even third scholarly generations removed from the Prophet. The fact that the whole application of the Qur’an depended upon memory invited abuse.Verses claiming to be Qur’anic revelations could be - and were - invented to serve the economic and political needs of individual Qurra.

Name: balamDate: Saturday January 10, 2009Time: 08:14:38 -0500

Comment

A very revealing article by Amar Khan. Dr. Zakir Naik must read this article. It might stop poisonous snakes coming out of his mouth on the so called PEACE CHANNEL which in reality is a propaganda channel of Islam to keep Muslims shackled in the chains of Ignorance.

Comment

Comment

Why didn't Allah, who gave all the revelations to Mohammed give him some literacy also?. Poor Mohammed though he could fool all the fools of desert land that Allah was giving revelations to him could not get Allah to give him some Knowledge. The thug was never interested in learning. Fearing that some one with real brains later would change his version like he did with whatever scriptures were there earlier he claimed that he is the last prophet. His followers were lured into it because they were getting the booty and the women and also a promise of 72 virgins

Comment

To: "would the real quran please stand up," It is better to belong to an organized religion than a disorganized religion. All religions are disorganized except one: THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH, WHICH HAS REMAINED CONSTANT THROUGH THE CENTURIES. The most disorganized "religion" is Islam, so much so that it is most violent even against itself. That's why Muslims are always murdering others, the "infidels" and even other Muslims.

Name: lensSubject: Date: Wednesday April 08, 2009Time: 20:30:21 -0400

Comment

If any religions teached evils include murder, telling lies or worshipping idols such religions not from God but from satan.